RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #75 (Damian Lillard)
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2024 6:01 pm
by Doctor MJ
Our system is now as follows:
1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.
2. Nomination vote now works the same way.
3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.
4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.
5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.
5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.
Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):
Spoiler:
AEnigma Ambrose ceilng raiser ceoofkobefans Clyde Frazier Colbinii cupcakesnake Doctor MJ Dooley DQuinn1575 Dr Positivity DraymondGold Dutchball97 f4p falcolombardi Fundamentals21 Gibson22 HeartBreakKid homecourtloss iggymcfrack LA Bird JimmyFromNz Joao Saraiva lessthanjake Lou Fan Moonbeam Narigo OhayoKD OldSchoolNoBull penbeast0 Rishkar rk2023 Samurai ShaqAttac Taj FTW Tim Lehrbach trelos6 trex_8063 ty 4191 WintaSoldier1 ZeppelinPage
Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):
Adrian Dantley
Rudy Gobert
Cliff Hagan
Damian Lillard
Dennis Rodman
As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:
Vote for #75: Damian Lillard. Lillard can shoot from deeper than any other player I've ever seen outside of Curry. I'd be more comfortable with voting for him if he got extra points for making shots from 30+ feet. 7-time All NBA team member (one first, four seconds and two thirds). 8-time all star. Dynamic scorer averaging over 20 ppg 11 out of 12 seasons, including the current season.
Alternate vote: Adrian Dantley. I acknowledge that the 6-time all star can be a polarizing player. But in his prime he was an elite scorer, leading the league twice and finished in the top ten in ppg 5 times. Preferred higher percentage shots closer to the rim rather than hoisting 30-footers, finishing in the top 15 in TS% for a dozen consecutive years. He was also a magnet at drawing fouls, finishing in the top ten in FT attempts 10 times, leading the league twice.
Nomination: Adrian Dantley Easily the greatest scorer left. Amazing combination of volume and efficiency.
One of only 5 players in NBA history to have a season over .400 TS Add, something neither LeBron James or Micheal Jordan ever accomplished! Of the top 11 guys in this stat, everyone else is in except for Alex Groza whose career was ended quickly over college point shaving scandals in the 50s. And it wasn't isolated, he was consistently among the league leaders in both scoring and efficiency for his whole career.
His history with coaches is mixed. Frank Layton in Utah ripped him publicly as a selfish player though he later tried to walk it back a few times. On the other hand, Chuck Daly praised his professionalism, work ethic, and even his defense. But basically he is a serious candidate as one of the greatest wing scorers to ever play and everyone close to him in volume and efficiency is in.
TS ADD LEADERS (single season) -- thanks to Owly for posting this
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 460.4 Steph Curry 454.7 Charles Barkley 433.5 Wilt Chamberlain 430.3 Adrian Dantley 404.8
Kevin Durant 394.9 Oscar Robertson 392.5 Jerry West 374.3 George Mikan 365.5 Karl Malone 362.8
+ Alex Groza '50. 377.4
Alt vote: Rudy Gobert. Even more impact defensively than Lillard offensively (and better offensive impact than Lilliard defensively). His current performance in Minnesota has pushed him over Lillard for me.
I just don't see either Vince or Tmac as that impactful to winning. Big stats guys and I loved VInce being one of the rare nerds to play in the NBA at his time but someone has to convince me they have great impact on top end winning like Jones has. Tmac was such a strange duck, he was incredibly talented but his coaches have called him out for poor practice habits and he never seemed to mesh well with Yao. In Orlando when Grant Hill went down and in Houston whenever Yao would go down though, it seemed like he would slip into a nearby phone booth and play like Superman for a stretch. Really not sure what to make of him. Not sure on Paul George, he seems a reach this early. Hasn't played 57 games since 1919 and had some injury limitations even before that, never was really one of the league's best at anything but very versatile, hasn't got the winning resume either.
Aww man, no nomination vote on my first vote. Davies and or Cousy (leaning Cousy), ya gotta wait one more round.
Broad strokes impressions of the candidates.
Dantley -12 seasons to really consider. '77-'89 skipping '83 -Elite scoring volume/efficiency, but not much of a contributor in other areas to my knowledge -Largest role on no man's land Utah teams without a ton of upside -Seemed to scale down decently well at each end of his career onto more competitive teams -Detroit famously got over the line after switching him out, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was actively holding them back
Notable sized WOWY samples: '79 Lakers: 37-23 with AD, 10-12 without. Looks nice for Dantley. '80 Jazz: 22-46 with, 2-12 without. Another positive signal. '83 Jazz: 9-13 with, 21-39 without. Solid again. '85 Jazz: 28-27 with, 13-14 without. More middling. '88 Pistons: 44-25 with, 10-3 without. This one's outright poor.
Overall - I think about appropriately appreciated during his Utah prime, an Allstar level guy when healthy who reasonably got a few All-NBA appearances. Never entered into serious MVP consideration and that feels right to me. Still a contributor in Detroit, but past his best days and probably fringe-star at most. Maybe a bit underappreciated in his early bouncing around days.
And now off for a walk for a bit. Will update this post with impressions on the other candidates.
Gobert -9 seasons to consider ('15-'23) -Elite rim protector and all-around defender, great on the glass, strong offensive screener/play-finisher, though limited -Led a Utah team that looked like a RS contender, but flamed out in the playoffs -A guy I expect to rise further from wherever he gets placed this go around, having a strong season in Minnesota and still has some in the tank
Notable sized WOWY samples (RS career +6.9 on-court and +7.6 on/off per 100): '16 Jazz: 33-28 with, 7-14 without. Excellent signal. '18 Jazz: 37-19 with, 11-15 without. Another excellent signal. '22 Jazz: 42-24 with, 7-9 without. Great again. '23 Wolves: 34-36 with, 8-4 without. Not good, not too surprising with that trade getting some 'worst-ever' hype last season.
Overall - I like Rudy, won't be shy about that. Broadly underappreciated in accolades (more of a defense thing than a Rudy thing). He's honestly my MVP pick for the '21 RS. Went up against ridiculous competition to start his PO career and looked rough ('17 Warriors, '18/'19 Rockets - was notably injured in the '17 POs), but I feel he's settled in solidly since then. As a Jazz fan I feel extra plugged into the comp of he vs Dantley, and in their Jazz only years I think it's Rudy by a mile. Rudy's question is - can he perform in the playoffs? With Dantley you'd be happy to ask that question. Obviously Dantley did more outside of Utah, but in this instance I don't think it closes the gap.
Rudy > Dantley of the first two, next up is Hagan (don't expect a change at the top)
Hagan -11 seasons to consider (rookie season not really relied upon until the POs, and that first ABA season is on the softer side, some mid career seasons lower minutes than you'd expect - notably '63) -Good volume/efficiency mid-range scorer, contributed strongly on the glass in early years, and maybe a bit underappreciated as a secondary creator -Had his best seasons as a 1B sort on some good Hawks squads from '58-'61, seems to perform quite well in the playoffs. Not so impressed with '62. More of a more limited 6th man scorer sort from that point on, seemed decent in role, but only decent and generally a much less valuable role (excepting Manu) -Brief comeback in the ABA as player-coach, but '68 the only season worth mentioning, and not at a clear star level.
Notable sized WOWY samples (really only the ABA years, so questionable value): '68 Chaparrals: 33-24 with, 13-8 without. Not too drastic either way, decent for a later career guy. '69 Chaparrals: 16-19 with, 25-18 without. Not good, but I really only included it to have a 2nd sample, he was pretty clearly done by this point.
Overall - Seems to have been a very strong player from '58-'61 (iffy on '62) peaking in the solid All-NBA range. If he'd had a bit more of a natural career arc I could see myself supporting him based of that peak/prime. But I'm just not inspired by what he did from '63 on.
Let the record show that I was mistaken in adding to Nominees to this thread. Only Dennis Rodman, not Sam Jones, should have been added. Removing Jones, and we will have a Nomination vote this thread.
Vote: Damian Lillard 37th all-time in VORP, 16th in career RAPM among everyone in the PBP era, tied with Steph Curry for 2nd (!) in ORAPM. Just a tremendous offensive engine both in terms of box and impact, unlike say Dantley who has great box numbers but fails to show the commensurate impact.
Nominate: Kyle Lowry 52nd in VORP, 44th in career RAPM, 34th in age-adjusted RAPM. Tremendously clutch playoff player as his on/off goes from +3.9 in the regular season to +9.5 in the postseason. He also was a very strong #2 the year the Raptors won the title. He had the best on/off numbers on the team for the regular season and postseason combined and came up huge when it mattered most putting up 26/7/10 on .697 TS% in the clinching Game 6.
Well, this has now become VERY easy with Sheed out of the way. There is now no one among the current candidates who is even REMOTELY close to the top two for me.....
Induction vote: Damian Lillard J.E.'s full career [playoff included] RAPM has him as tied [with Steph Curry] as the 2nd-best offensive RAPM of the last quarter century. Tremendous shooting range (literally 2nd only to Steph Curry), has been able to score at volume at very nice shooting efficiency with reasonably solid playmaking and very good turnover economy for a number of years now. He basically came into the league "NBA-ready", and was REALLY durable for his first nine seasons. If looking at ANY of his rate metrics (impact metrics included), bear in mind he's averaged 36.3 mpg for his career.
Alternate vote: Adrian Dantley Monster scorer whose box-based metrics merit his inclusion a long time ago; the lag on his apparent impact and general lack of team success has held him back, but this feels like an appropriate place for him.
Again, no one else close.
Hagan's claim is as an efficient scorer. Yet he's less efficient (even relative to a less efficient league) than Dantley......and on smaller volume.......and in a weaker overall league.......and for a shorter period of time. And he has a coach who actively/publicly criticized his defense. So why then should I favour him over Dantley? Oh right: ringz. Basically, he's a short prime in a weak era, nice box-based metrics for a handful of years [with precisely two years where he looks like a playoff riser], though with impact signals that lag well-behind (and an account from a coach expounding on how he's a bad defender......which perhaps explains the phenomenon??). And I note that NO ONE in his own time thought as highly of him as we're trying to elevate him to now, after the fact. Anyway, as I've elaborated on before, the things that stand out to me are: short prime, weak era, weak impact signals in said era, and accolades or opinions of contemporaries somewhat lacking too.
Rudy Gobert is one of my favorite players of all-time; but he suffers in my methodology for some of the same reasons Bobby Jones did: he's got just 10 seasons [missing a significant chunk in two of them], and averaged just 30.3 mpg within this span. Granted playing time skews lower these days, but it still rides right on the edge of "limited" at times. He's actually played <21k minutes prior to this season (even Bobby Jones had almost 5k more than that). That puts too much of a cap on his possible career value to this stage. Hagan is probably the ONLY one of the candidates I'd put Gobert ahead of presently. And again: this is perhaps my favourite player of the league currently.
Rodman gets a lot of compliments that run along the lines of "GOAT-level rebounding and all-time tier defense". Except he was rarely [ever?] both of these things at the same time. He actively sacrificed good defense to be a GOAT-level rebounder. He can be seen neglecting to box guys out to instead "chase" the rebound (to his credit, his instincts were good, as was his quickness [especially on that second/third jump], and his energy in this endeavour was tenacious). He also completely gave up perimeter defense (one of the things he was known to be a versatile "stopper" with during early years in Detroit) to chase those rebounds. This is a big part of why Robert Horry goes off like an All-Star in the series against San Antonio: because Rodman is often no where to be found near his man. His off-court antics and persona also leave a lot to be desired. That said, his impact signals are at least decent/good, generally, and he was a key piece in a number of title teams. Still, I think his position in lists such as this overstate his value/importance.
If it came to runoff, I'd rate this field like so: Lillard > Dantley >> Rodman > Gobert/Hagan
Nomination: Allen Iverson Alternate nomination: Bob Cousy I may swap these two, pending prevailing winds. Not a fan of Iverson; hate how I often end up being his defender.
Cousy's a legend, prototype [to a degree], key piece of multiple contenders, has an impact profile that's better than many assume, particularly considering the ORtg/DRtg's on bbref may be skewed by assumed turnover rates which may not apply to the Celtics of circa-1960 [because they were jacking up shots so early in the shotclock]......which means their offense was possibly better [and defense worse] than indicated. See circa-post #20 in the #71 thread for further arguments regarding the Houdini of the Hardwood.
Iverson, while not efficient [as a shooter/scorer], he was able to shoulder immense offensive volume with a reasonably impressive turnover economy and semi-passable shooting efficiency (and I must admit that I do think the "Iverson assist" is a real thing: draw the help D at the rim, miss the shot, but now a big-man teammate is there with no one blocking him out). Not to mention his motor, which was insane, allowing him to be frequently #1 or #2 in mpg. In these ways he could "carry" a team bereft of offensive talent or depth, and get them to tread water. It's not nothing.
And for better or worse [probably for worse], he was an icon to the sport, who influenced its trajectory to no small degree.
VOTE: Damian Lillard Alternate: Dennis Rodman NOMINATE: Allen Iverson AltNom: Andre Iguodala Kyle Lowry
AEnigma wrote:Much like with Isiah, I am surprisingly one of the first to back Iverson. Iverson had a pretty nice 10-to-12-year prime before his rapid decline. His cultural legacy outpaced his real impact, but his ability to shoulder massive minutes and scoring loads did have a notable lift on his team. The 76ers went from a -9.5 SRS team to a -5.5 team (factoring his missed games) upon his arrival. From 1997-2007, they won at a 33-win pace without him and a 42-win pace with him. That is not overwhelming improvement, but it is a lot of value provided over eleven years. His effect in Denver was more tepid — unsurprising given the scoring overlap with Carmelo — but I think he deserves credit for helping them reach what to that point was a new high mark in wins and SRS, and as I believe I have detailed elsewhere, the difference between the 2008 team and the 2009 team tends to be overstated (although Billups was indeed better for that team).
Iverson and Rodman are my last inclusions on a sort of modified NBA top 75 (distinct from a pure CORP top 75). For Rodman, in addition to being a top three presence on two distinct dynasties (of a sort), I think his 1992 season qualifies as a top 100 peak. He has one of the highest career win percentages across an eleven-year stretch of quality play and is one of the league’s most notable rebounders and non-big defenders. With Rasheed and Bobby the favourites for the next two or three spots, I think Rodman fits in well as a strong tertiary piece on teams with title aspirations.
Doc’s comment on whether he would rather have prime Lowry or prime Iverson largely depends on roster structure. Iverson can handle a massive scoring and minutes load but is a less natural fit alongside most other high volume scorers because his passing was always a secondary consideration and his defence was mediocre to bad (depending on the size of his backcourt partner). Lowry has all the attractive supplemental skills: good distance shooter, good primary and secondary passer, smart and competent guard defence, decent quasi-first option scoring capacity but happy to scale down… I think Iverson is the more significant figure to the league, but yeah, Lowry was great and set a name for himself as the key player for a (young) franchise, so I am not going to complain about him receiving some love.
Dame -10 relevant seasons eligible here ('13-'23 minus '22) -Elite scorer, strong shooter, reasonably solid on-ball playmaker for others. Weak defender. -Led some good but not quite contending Blazers squads -It isn't supposed to directly change my vote here, but his start in Milwaukee isn't a homerun, though I find his individual play better than others seem to.
Notable sized WOWY samples (RS career +3.3 on-court and and +7.7 on-off per 100): '16 Blazers: 40-35 with, 4-3 without. Not great, notably a very small sample. '17 Blazers: 38-37 with, 3-4 without. Similar to above. '18 Blazers: 44-29 with, 5-4 without. Best yet, solid. '20 Blazers: 33-33 with, 2-6 without. Good, lots of kind of small ones for Dame over the years. '22 Blazers: 12-17 with, 15-38 without. Strong. '23 Blazers: 27-31 with, 6-18 without. Another strong one, noting it's one of the more blatant without tank jobs I've seen.
Overall - Pretty direct contemporary to Gobert. Answers PO questions more strongly than Gobert (still exist), but I have his RS play starting at a bit lower baseline. Better longevity (maybe slightly worse injury issues?). I have his peak/prime a half step up from Dantley and Hagan just isn't on my radar due to longevity issues. I'm undecided on Rudy vs Dame, currently leaning Dame but am open to switching and it's one that isn't done being written at all.
Currently Dame/Rudy > AD > Hagan for me. Will have to start thinking about the nominations as well as I see they're open again.
Tune in next week for the finale: Rodman.
Rodman -12 seasons ('87-'98) -Elite rebounder (maybe underselling it), great defender. -Won a lot on 3 different squads.
Notable sized WOWY samples (we have +/- for a reasonable portion of his career but don't feel like combining different samples right now - broadly, looks great in San Antonio, a bit back to earth in Chicago, distant #3 to MJ/Pippen - which isn't the biggest sin, there's a reason they've been voted in for months): '93 Pistons: 36-26 with, 4-16 without. Spectacular signal. '95 Spurs: 40-9 with, 22-11 without. Very good. '96 Bulls: 57-7 with, 15-3 without. Decent. '97 Bulls: 48-7 with, 21-6 without. Another solid one. '99 Lakers: 17-6 with, 14-13 without. Another great one.
Overall - Thank goodness we track rebounds. Defense and rebounding travel, and he was one of the best in both categories.
Conclusions: I'm fine with any of Rodman/Dame/Rudy getting this spot, will have to think a bit more on which two I'll be voting for.
Doctor MJ wrote:Let the record show that I was mistaken in adding to Nominees to this thread. Only Dennis Rodman, not Sam Jones, should have been added. Removing Jones, and we will have a Nomination vote this thread.
~Doc
Here are my nominees for this round:
Nomination: Sam Jones. Ten rings but some will take that with a grain of salt for being Russell's teammate. Three-time All NBA Second Team (cursed by playing guard at the same time that Oscar and West were in their primes) and had three top ten finishes in MVP voting. Seven top twenty finishes in both points/game and TS% indicates that he was not only a scoring threat but an efficient shooter as well. I don't have a good feel on how good he was on defense; he had 9 top twenty finishes in DWS but Russell was obviously the primary driver of the team's excellent defense and KC Jones typically drew the assignment of defending the opposing team's primary backcourt scorer. One of the greatest bank shot artists of all-time; he was banking in shots before Tim Duncan was even born. Alternate nomination: Sidney Moncrief. Doesn't have elite longevity but has six strong seasons of prime. Great all around player who impacted the game with his scoring, playmaking, defense and leadership. Also consistently finished in the top 3 in rebounds/game among guards during his prime. Moncrief didn't have a ton of success in the play-offs but he did consistently manage to lead teams to the play-offs and be competitive against stacked 76ers and Celtics teams. Five time all star with five All NBA Team selections (one first team and four seconds). Outstanding defender with five All Defensive Team selections, four of them on the first team.
Vote for Rudy Gobert - Top tier defender for several years in a row and a good lob threat. I don't think he is much further off from some of the more recent DPOY giants that have made the list like Ben Wallace and the 70s Washington guys. I think his defense is a lot more consistent than people give him credit for even in the post season. I don't think videos of him not being able to guard Curry who is taking infinite dribbles is a great barometer. I feel more confident with him than any of the offensive options here.
My alternate vote is for Cliff Hagan - More like I don't love the other candidates. Rodman is an interesting one though, haven't thought much about him.
Vote: Dame Lillard Alt vote: Rudy Gobert Nomination: Kyle Lowry
Damian Lillard provides a combination of scoring, shooing, and playmaking that has led to consistent impact. Some of his subpar playoff series and poor defense puts a damper on hinge and limits his CORP.
Rudy has been a generational defender in an era in which it’s the toughest for a 5 to play defense. He’s also not been a zero on offense, something that’s rare for generational big men defenders.
Nominees thoughts, mostly guys I've seen discussed+1
Cousy - will be my top nominee, better longevity than his Boston competition (Sharman/Jones), beats them out in reputation, impact metrics point towards him over them even in the Russell era, and seems to have peaked higher than that earlier. Will probably wait on a Davies push until Cousy is on the ballot.
Moncrief/Tatum - not enough longevity for me, though I see them as the two 'best' players being discussed.
Marion - like his Phoenix time (including some of the pre-Nash years), but thoroughly unimpressed after he left Phoenix, not sold
Nance - Fine case, almost all his seasons are prime level, not a great peak, but better longevity than an immediate glance might indicate
Iverson/Lowry - the two I'm really deciding between for my 2nd slot, but I'd note that if he had traction I'd be seriously considering Jrue as well.
eminence wrote:if he had traction I'd be seriously considering Jrue as well.
How do you feel Jrue compares to say Al Horford, Andre Iguodala, or even Metta Artest?
(I recognise Metta’s scoring and personal volatility almost automatically disqualify him in the eyes of several voters here, but I think his impact profile and longevity merits discussion on the backend.)
eminence wrote:if he had traction I'd be seriously considering Jrue as well.
How do you feel Jrue compares to say Al Horford, Andre Iguodala, or even Metta Artest?
(I recognise Metta’s scoring and personal volatility almost automatically disqualify him in the eyes of several voters here, but I think his impact profile and longevity merits discussion on the backend.)
Good list of guys, first impressions, Metta may need to be a guy I more seriously consider. I think Iguodala/Horford would be in the HM category for a personal top 100, but could see myself supporting them depending on the nominated competition (I'd take either over Hagan as a for instance, and I don't think Dantley is a given over them either).
4. Iguodala - I'm not as high on him, I think too much of his case rests on great seasons as a 4th/5th guy (some arguments vs Klay prior to KD arriving). He was great with the Warriors, but I'm not that impressed by his Philadelphia time.
3. Horford - Like his Atlanta years a bit more than Andre's Sixers years, but still not overly high on his peak (both guys I'd feel more comfortable describing as high end Allstars than as low end All-NBA guys). Has aged similarly well.
2. Holiday - Love Jrue, more easy to compare him to Iguodala/Metta directly in role than Horford. Great great defenders all, but I trust Jrue the most on offense, generally not as punitive as some are on middling efficiency guys if they do a lot of other stuff.
1. Metta - At his best, kinda clearly the best player here imo. I think he was the best player on the '04 Pacers, which is darn impressive to lead a 61 win team. I'm trying to decide on him vs Moncrief for all the guys mentioned behind Tatum. Aged pretty well. Did light a contending season on fire in a way nobody else ever really has and it's difficult to weigh that.
it looks like dame will win but my gut says i'd rather have dennis rodman over the course of his career over damian lillard. rodman could never be the franchise guy for many reasons, but it's just hard to say how far you are going with lillard as your main guy. but down here it's so tough to separate guys out that i have no qualms with either guy.
if gobert played in the 80's and could just stand at the rim and swat all comers, he might have been off the board long before this.
-> Arguable lead on multiple decent to good teams -> Arguably the league's best rim protector and historically excellent in terms of mobility in comparison to other centers -> Excellent screen-setting and decent finishing makes him a positive in most contexts -> RS Impact darling(playoff translation is a question) -> Wins any sort of era/translation tie-breaker against other "stay-at-home" bigs imo.
2. Damian Lillard
Nomination
1. Kyle Lowry
-> Key piece on a gauntlet-running champion -> Key piece on a team that was able to contend without said champion's best piece -> Best player on a better version of the Mark-Price Cavaliers -> Positive contributor afterward for unlikely finalist -> Strong intangibles -> Solid longetivity -> Has played in the most talented version of the league, would have more outsized impact the earlier you transport him
2, Allen Iverson
Skepticism on Sam Jones and Bob Cousy
Spoiler:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Good points about Sharman. He did have a better defensive rep, more minutes, and reasonably equivalent offensive production to Sam Jones. On the other hand, he did it mainly in the 50s while Jones did it mainly in the 60s and I have the 60s as a considerably stronger league. One of the biggest jumps in NBA strength over a very short game was going from the end of the 50s to the beginning of the 60s and adding the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, and Jerry West but also a significant playstyle difference. I compare players within their own era but I do take into account era strength which is why I have Sam Jones higher than Bill Sharman. I also think that Cousy's playmaking was more of a factor in getting easy assisted baskets than the KC Jones/Russell/Havlicek shared playmaking of the mid to late 60s Celtics.
As for Cousy's defense, the quote I remember best was Red Auerbach hoping NOT to get stuck with Cousy in the dispersion draft and specifically disparaging Cousy's defense. That was early in Cousy's career but it's from arguably the NBA's greatest talent evaluator.
As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".
I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.
Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.
Or we can exclude both
Sam Jones does look better by WOWY, mostly by default:
In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him.
This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain
I would have pause considering either for the top 100 simply because they were on championship teams. I also know some voters here have put stock into moonbeam's version of psuedo-rapm where Russell is the gold standard regularized and torches the field to a degree no one else across history does with his raw inputs(doubles 2nd place Wilt iirc over a certain stretch). Lots of emphasis on points and ts add on average offenses seems odd. Sam Jones defense has been praised but he is a guard and the defenses don't actually seem to care too much about whether he's there or not. 1969 is probably not fair since it's 6th man Sam Jones, but 1966 Sam Jones put up one of his highest point totals and fg percentages so if that version is not making a signficant impact, why is he being voted in here, let alone Sherman?
Honestly would be wierd to be putting more of Russell's teammates on this list than last time when we have a bunch of new evidence/argumentation suggesting Russell is more valuable individually than people were crediting him as the last go around and we have a bunch of new players to consider. Do these players actually warrant being considered over 100 other nba players?
Am pretty open to Cousy since he was post-prime with his own unimpressive signal and I assume he did something to earn the MVP but...
trex_8063 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:Could you elaborate on that profile? All I recall was Ben's writeup saying the Celtics got better without him over multiple >10 game samples in Cousy's post-prime and a bunch of breakdowns her arguing he was kind of done by 60.
Will first emphasize that your above comments appear to specifically delineate Cousy's post-prime. And I'll also acknowledge that the league/game progressed faster than Cousy did as a player.
That said, the limited/noisy impact metric from the very same source (Ben Taylor) reflects decently upon Cousy: his prime WOWYR is +4.4, career +3.9.
As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:
With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.
In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.
I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.
The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?
eminence wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:
With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.
In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.
I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.
The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?
On Cousy.
I think his early career WOWY signal is unfortunately impossible to pin down.
He/Macauley arrive in Boston at the same time, the league contracts from 17 to 10.5 teams, both the without and with samples have large gaps between their ratings/win% (in opposing directions). It all combines to make the '50 vs '51 Celtics comparison very difficult, though I think it's clear the two combine with Red to turn the franchise around (they were absolute garbage their first four seasons and turned into a consistent .500+/playoff squad).
He then misses a grand total of 1 RS game prior to '57.
Agreed that 'offensive dynasty' oversells the Celtics of the period (hey, sometimes we're all sellers). They were a decent to good team, built around a strong offense. Related - I believe they only won 3 series over that period (you may have counted the '54 round robin as two wins).
0-2 vs Knicks '51 1-2 vs Knicks '52 2-0 vs Nats '53 1-3 vs Knicks '53 2-2 '54 Round Robin (2-0 vs Knicks, 0-2 vs Nats) 0-2 vs Nats '54 2-1 vs Knicks '55 1-3 vs Nats '55 1-2 vs Nats '56
For comparison the other Eastern conference squads from '51-'56 (not counting tiebreakers). Knicks 6 series wins Nats 8 (counting the '54 round robin as 2 wins) Warriors 2 (their '56 title)
A worse but healthier version of the Lob City Clippers.
My current sentiment on inclusion in the top 100 for both is Cousy as a maybe(entirely on the basis of him winning an MVP really), and Sam Jones as a no. The former does not have notable team-success in the "prime" we don't have substantial data for and Russell's Celtics play better without him in the post-period.
For the latter, we have a peak signal where the Celtics do not drop-off without him, a marginal bit of lift in the year he's a 6th man, and is his claim to fame is scoring prowess on an average offense with the possiblity that this is a result of scheme(which still only works if we assume Sam Jones had substantially better impact than what can be discerned statistically).
Possible he's just gotten unlucky with the games he's missed, but the evidence for Jones being top-100 worthy just isn't there I think
(note: at this point it would mainly be sam jones skepticsm for me)
I'll be looking to nominate Walton as soon as he starts getting enough support.
